document_title: Tariffs in United States history

question_text: who favored high tariffs during the pre civil war era

question_tokens: who favored high tariffs during the pre civil war era

root

text: Tariffs in United States history

text: Historical trends[edit]

text: According to Michael Lind, protectionism was America's de facto policy from the passage of the Tariff of 1816 to World War II, "switching to free trade only in 1945, when most of its industrial competitors had been wiped out" by the war.[9]. It has been argued that one of the underlying motivations for the American Revolution itself was a desire to industrialize, and reverse the trade deficit with Britain, which had grown by a factor of ten in the space of a few decades, from £67,000 (1721–30) to £739,000 (1761–70).[10]

tag: p

text: Paul Bairoch states that since the end of the 18th century, the United States has been "the homeland and bastion of modern protectionism". In fact, the United States never adhered to free trade until 1945. A protectionist policy was adopted during the presidency of George Washington by Alexander Hamilton, the first US Treasury Secretary. Hamilton wrote the Report on Manufactures, which called for customs barriers to allow American industrial development and to help protect infant industries, including bounties (subsidies) derived in part from those tariffs. This text was one of the references of the German economist Friedrich List (1789–1846). This policy remained throughout the 19th century and the overall level of tariffs was very high (close to 50% in 1830). The victory of the protectionist states of the North over the free trade southern states at the end of the Civil War (1861–1865) perpetuated this trend, even during periods of free trade in Europe (1860–1880).[11]

text: Hamilton explained that despite an initial "increase of price" caused by regulations that control foreign competition, once a "domestic manufacture has attained to perfection… it invariably becomes cheaper." George Washington signed the Tariff Act of 1789, making it the Republic's second ever piece of legislation. Increasing the domestic supply of manufactured goods, particularly war materials, was seen as an issue of national security. Washington and Hamilton believed that political independence was predicated upon economic independence.[12]

text: In the 19th century, statesmen such as Senator Henry Clay continued Hamilton's themes within the Whig Party under the name "American System." The fledgling Republican Party led by Abraham Lincoln, who called himself a "Henry Clay tariff Whig", strongly opposed free trade, and implemented a 44-percent tariff during the Civil War—in part to pay for railroad subsidies and for the war effort, and to protect favored industries.[13]

text: From 1871 to 1913, "the average U.S. tariff on dutiable imports never fell below 38 percent [and] gross national product (GNP) grew 4.3 percent annually, twice the pace in free trade Britain and well above the U.S. average in the 20th century," notes Alfred Eckes Jr., chairman of the U.S. International Trade Commission under President Reagan.

text: In 1896, the GOP platform pledged to "renew and emphasize our allegiance to the policy of protection, as the bulwark of American industrial independence, and the foundation of development and prosperity. This true American policy taxes foreign products and encourages home industry. It puts the burden of revenue on foreign goods; it secures the American market for the American producer. It upholds the American standard of wages for the American workingman."

text: Colonial Era to 1789[edit]

text: In the colonial era, before 1775, nearly every colony levied its own tariffs, usually with lower rates for British products. There were taxes on ships (on a tonnage basis), import taxes on slaves, export taxes on tobacco, and import taxes on alcoholic beverages.[14] The London government insisted on a policy of mercantilism whereby only British ships could trade in the colonies. In defiance, some American merchants engaged in smuggling.[15][16]

text: During the Revolution, the British blockade from 1775 to 1783 largely ended foreign trade. In the 1783–89 Confederation Period, each state set up its own trade rules, often imposing tariffs or restrictions on neighboring states. The new Constitution, which went into effect in 1789, banned interstate tariffs or trade restrictions, as well as state taxes on exports.[17]

text: Early National period, 1789–1828[edit]

text: The framers of the United States Constitution gave the federal government authority to tax, stating that Congress has the power to "... lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." and also "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Tariffs between states is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, and all domestically made products can be imported or shipped to another state tax-free.

text: Responding to an urgent need for revenue and a trade imbalance with England that was fast destroying the infant American industries and draining the nation of its currency, the First United States Congress passed, and President George Washington signed, the Hamilton Tariff of 1789, which authorized the collection of duties on imported goods. Customs duties as set by tariff rates up to 1860 were usually about 80–95% of all federal revenue. Having just fought a war over taxation (among other things) the U.S. Congress wanted a reliable source of income that was relatively unobtrusive and easy to collect. It also sought to protect the infant industries that had developed during the war but which were now threatened by cheaper imports, especially from England. Tariffs and excise taxes were authorized by the United States Constitution and recommended by the first United States Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton in 1789 to tax foreign imports and set up low excise taxes on whiskey and a few other products to provide the Federal Government with enough money to pay its operating expenses and to redeem at full value U.S. Federal debts and the debts the states had accumulated during the Revolutionary War. The Congress set low excise taxes on only a few goods, such as, whiskey, rum, tobacco, snuff and refined sugar. The tax on whiskey was highly controversial and set of massive protests by Western Farmers in the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, which was suppressed by General Washington at the head of an army. The whiskey excise tax collected so little and was so despised it was abolished by President Thomas Jefferson in 1802.[18]

text: All tariffs were on a long list of goods (dutiable goods) with different customs rates and some goods on a "free" list. Congress spent enormous amounts of time figuring out these tariff import tax schedules.

text: With tariffs providing the basic federal revenue, an embargo on trade, or an enemy blockade, would threaten havoc. This happened in connection with the American economic warfare against Britain in the 1807–15 period. In 1807 imports dropped by more than half and some products became much more expensive or unobtainable. Congress passed the Embargo Act of 1807 and the Non-Intercourse Act (1809) to punish British and French governments for their actions; unfortunately their main effect was to reduce imports even more. The War of 1812 brought a similar set of problems as U.S. trade was again restricted by British naval blockades. The fiscal crisis was made much worse by the abolition of the First Bank of the U.S., which was the national bank. It was reestablished right after the war.[19]

text: The lack of imported goods relatively quickly gave very strong incentives to start building several U.S. industries in the Northeast. Textiles and machinery especially grew. Many new industries were set up and run profitably during the wars and about half of them failed after hostilities ceased and normal imports resumed. Industry in the U.S. was advancing up the skill set, innovation knowledge and organization curve.

text: The Tariff Act of 1789 imposed the first national source of revenue for the newly formed United States. The new U.S. Constitution ratified in 1789, allowed only the federal government to levy uniform tariffs. Only the federal government could set tariff rates (customs), so the old system of separate state rates disappeared. The new law taxed all imports at rates from 5 to 15 percent. These rates were primarily designed to generate revenue to pay the annual expenses of the federal government and the national debt and the debts the states had accumulated during the American War of Independence and to also promote manufactures and independence from foreign nations, especially for defense needs. Hamilton believed that all Revolutionary War debt should be paid in full to establish and keep U.S. financial credibility. In addition to income in his Report on Manufactures Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton proposed a far-reaching plan to use protective tariffs as a lever for rapid industrialization. In the late 18th century the industrial age was just starting and the United States had little or no textile industry—the heart of the early Industrial Revolution. The British government having just lost the Revolutionary War tried to maintain their near monopoly on cheap and efficient textile manufacturing by prohibiting the export of textile machines, machine models or the emigration of people familiar with these machines. Clothing in the early United States was nearly all hand made by a very time consuming and expensive process—just like it had been made for centuries before. The new textile manufacturing techniques in Britain were often over thirty times cheaper as well as being easier to use, more efficient and productive. Hamilton believed that a stiff tariff on imports would not only raise income but "protect" and help subsidize early efforts at setting up manufacturing facilities that could compete with British products.[20]

text: Samuel Slater in 1789 emigrated (illegally since he was familiar with textile manufacturing) from Britain. Looking for opportunities he heard of the failing attempts at making cotton mills in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. Contacting the owners he promised to see if he could fix their mills—they offered him a full partnership if he succeeded. Declaring their early attempts unworkable he proceeded from January 1790 to December 1790 to build the first operational textile manufacturing facility in the United States. The Industrial Revolution was off and running in the United States. Initially the cost of their textiles was slightly higher than the cost of equivalent British goods but the tariff helped protect their early start-up industry.[21]

text: The high protectionism tariffs Hamilton originally called for were not adopted until after the War of 1812, when nationalists such as Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun saw the need for more federal income and more industry. In wartime, they declared, having a home industry was a necessity to avoid shortages. Likewise owners of the small new factories that were springing up in the northeast to mass-produce boots, hats, nails and other common items wanted higher tariffs that would significantly protect them for a time from more efficient British producers. A 10% discount on the customs tax was offered on items imported in American ships, so that the American merchant marine would be supported.[22]

text: Once industrialization and mass production started, the demand for higher and higher tariffs came from manufacturers and factory workers. They believed that their businesses should be protected from the lower wages and more efficient factories of Britain and the rest of Europe. Nearly every northern Congressman was eager to logroll a higher tariff rate for his local industry. Senator Daniel Webster, formerly a spokesperson for Boston's merchants who imported goods (and wanted low tariffs), switched dramatically to represent the manufacturing interests in the Tariff of 1824. Rates were especially high for bolts of cloth and for bar iron, of which Britain was a low-cost producer. The culmination came in the Tariff of 1828, ridiculed by free traders as the "Tariff of Abominations", with import custom duties averaging over 25 percent. Intense political opposition to higher tariffs came from Southern Democrats and plantation owners in South Carolina who had little manufacturing industry and imported some products with high tariffs. They would have to pay more for imports. They claimed their economic interest was being unfairly injured. They attempted to "nullify" the federal tariff and spoke of secession from the Union (see the Nullification Crisis). President Andrew Jackson let it be known he would use the U.S. Army to enforce the law, and no state supported the South Carolina call for nullification. A compromise ended the crisis included a lowering of the average tariff rate over ten years to a rate of 15% to 20%.[23]

text: Second Party System, 1829–1859[edit]

text: Tariffs soon became a major political issue as the Whigs (1832–1852) and (after 1854) the Republicans wanted to protect their mostly northern industries and constituents by voting for higher tariffs and the Southern Democrats, which had very little industry but imported many goods voted for lower tariffs. Each party as it came into power voted to raise or lower tariffs under the constraints that the Federal Government always needed a certain level of revenues. The United States public debt was paid off in 1834 and President Andrew Jackson, a strong Southern Democrat, oversaw the cutting of the tariff rates roughly in half and eliminating nearly all federal excise taxes in about 1835.

text: Henry Clay and his Whig Party, envisioning a rapid modernization based on highly productive factories, sought a high tariff. Their key argument was that startup factories, or "infant industries", would at first be less efficient than European (British) producers. Furthermore, American factory workers were paid higher wages than their European competitors. The arguments proved highly persuasive in industrial districts. Clay's position was adopted in the 1828 and 1832 Tariff Acts. The Nullification Crisis forced a partial abandonment of the Whig position. When the Whigs won victories in the 1840 and 1842 elections, taking control of Congress, they re-instituted higher tariffs with the Tariff of 1842.[24] In examining these debates Moore finds that they were not precursors to Civil War. Instead they looked backward and continued the old debate whether foreign trade policy should embrace free trade or protectionism.[25]

text: Walker Tariff[edit]

text: The Democrats won in 1845, electing James K. Polk as president. Polk succeeded in passing the Walker tariff of 1846 by uniting the rural and agricultural factions of the entire country for lower tariffs. They sought a level of a "tariff for revenue only" that would pay the cost of government but not show favoritism to one section or economic sector at the expense of another. The Walker Tariff actually increased trade with Britain and others and brought in more revenue to the federal treasury than the higher tariff. The average tariff on the Walker Tariff was about 25%. While protectionists in Pennsylvania and neighboring states were angered, the South achieved its goal of setting low tariff rates before the Civil War.[26]

text: Low tariff of 1857[edit]

text: The Walker Tariff remained in place until 1857, when a nonpartisan coalition lowered them again with the Tariff of 1857 to 18%. This was in response to the British repeal of their protectionist "Corn Laws".[27]

text: The Democrats in Congress, dominated by Southern Democrats, wrote and passed the tariff laws in the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s, and kept reducing rates, so that the 1857 rates were down to about 15%, a move that boosted trade so overwhelmingly that revenues actually increased, from just over $20 million in 1840 ($0.5 billion in 2016 dollars), to more than $80 million by 1856 ($1.7 billion).[28] The South had almost no complaints but the low rates angered many Northern industrialists and factory workers, especially in Pennsylvania, who demanded protection for their growing iron industry. The Republican Party replaced the Whigs in 1854 and also favored high tariffs to stimulate industrial growth; it was part of the 1860 Republican platform.

text: The Morrill Tariff significantly raising tariff rates became possible only after the Southern Senators walked out of Congress when their states left the Union, leaving a Republican majority. It was signed by Democratic President James Buchanan in early March 1861 shortly before President Abraham Lincoln took office. Pennsylvania iron mills and New England woolen mills mobilized businessmen and workers to call for high tariffs, but Republican merchants wanted low tariffs. The high tariff advocates lost in 1857, but stepped up their campaign by blaming the economic recession of 1857 on the lower rates. Economist Henry Charles Carey of Philadelphia was the most outspoken advocate, along with Horace Greeley and his influential newspaper, the New York Tribune. Increases were finally enacted in February 1861 after Southerners resigned their seats in Congress on the eve of the Civil War.[29][30]

text: Some historians in recent decades have minimized the tariff issue as a cause of the war, noting that few people in 1860–61 said it was of central importance to them. Compromises were proposed in 1860–61 to save the Union, but they did not involve the tariff.[31] Arguably, the effects of a tariff enacted in March 1861 could have made little impact upon any delegation which met prior to its signing. It is indicative of the Northern industrial supported and anti-agrarian position of that 1861 Republican controlled congress. Some secessionist documents do mention a tariff issue, though not nearly as often as the preservation of the impactful economic institution of slavery. However, a few libertarian economists place more importance on the tariff issue.[32]

text: Civil War[edit]

text: During the war far more revenue was needed, so the rates were raised again and again, along with many other taxes such as excise taxes on luxuries and income taxes on the rich.[33] By far most of the wartime government revenue came from bonds and loans ($2.6 billion), not taxes ($357 million) or tariffs ($305 million).[34]

text: The Morrill Tariff took effect a few weeks before the war began on April 12, 1861, and was not collected in the South. The Confederate States of America (CSA) passed its own tariff of about 15% on most items, including many items that previously were duty-free from the North. Previously tariffs between states were prohibited. The Confederates believed that they could finance their government by tariffs. The anticipated tariff revenue never appeared as the Union Navy blockaded their ports and the Union army restricted their trade with the Northern states. The Confederacy collected a mere $3.5 million in tariff revenue from the Civil War start to end and had to resort to inflation and confiscation instead for revenue.[35]

text: Reconstruction Era[edit]

text: Historian Howard K. Beale argued that high tariffs were needed during the Civil War, but were retained after the war for the benefit of Northern industrialists, who would otherwise lose markets and profits. To keep political control of Congress, Beale argued, Northern Industrialists worked through the Republican Party and supported Reconstruction policies that kept low-tariff Southern whites out of power. The Beale thesis was widely disseminated by the influential survey of Charles A. Beard, The Rise of American Civilization (1927).[36][37]

text: In the late 1950s historians rejected the Beale-Beard thesis by showing that Northern businessmen were evenly divided on the tariff, and were not using Reconstruction policies to support it.[38][39]

text: Politics of protection[edit]

text: The iron and steel industry, and the wool industry, were the well-organized interests groups that demanded (and usually obtained) high tariffs through support of the Republican Party. Industrial workers had much higher wages than their European counterparts, and they creditied it to the tariff and voted Republican.[40]

text: Democrats were divided on the issue, in large part because of pro-tariff elements in the Pennsylvania party who wanted to protect the growing iron industry, as well as pockets of high tariff support in nearby industrializing states.[41] However President Grover Cleveland made low tariffs the centerpiece of Democratic Party policies in the late 1880s. His argument is that high tariffs were an unnecessary and unfair tax on consumers. The South and West generally supported low tariffs, and the industrial East high tariffs.[42] Republican William McKinley was the outstanding spokesman for high tariffs, promising it would bring prosperity for all groups.[43][44]

text: After the Civil War, high tariffs remained as the Republican Party remained in office and the Southern Democrats were restricted from office. Advocates insisted that tariffs brought prosperity to the nation as a whole and no one was really injured. As industrialization proceeded apace throughout the Northeast, some Democrats, especially Pennsylvanians, became high tariff advocates.

text: Farmers and wool[edit]

text: The Republican high tariff advocates appealed to farmers with the theme that high-wage factory workers would pay premium prices for foodstuffs. This was the "home market" idea, and it won over most farmers in the Northeast, but it had little relevance to the southern and western farmers who exported most of their cotton, tobacco and wheat. In the late 1860s the wool manufacturers (based near Boston and Philadelphia) formed the first national lobby, and cut deals with wool-growing farmers in several states. Their challenge was that fastidious wool producers in Britain and Australia marketed a higher quality fleece than the careless Americans, and that British manufacturers had costs as low as the American mills. The result was a wool tariff that helped the farmers by a high rate on imported wool—a tariff the American manufacturers had to pay—together with a high tariff on finished woolens and worsted goods.[45]

text: U.S. industrial output[edit]

text: Apart from wool and woolens, American industry and agriculture—and industrial workers—had become the most efficient in the world by the 1880s as they took the lead in the worldwide Industrial Revolution. They were not at risk from cheap imports. No other country had the industrial capacity, large market, the high efficiency and low costs, or the complex distribution system needed to compete in the vast American market. Indeed, it was the British who watched in stunned horror as cheaper American products flooded their home islands. Wailed the London Daily Mail in 1900,

text: "We have lost to the American manufacturer electrical machinery, locomotives, steel rails, sugar-producing and agricultural machinery, and latterly even stationary engines, the pride and backbone of the British engineering industry."

text: Nevertheless, some American manufacturers and union workers demanded the high tariff be maintained. The tariff represented a complex balance of forces. Railroads, for example, consumed vast quantities of steel. To the extent tariffs raised steel prices, they paid much more making possible the U.S steel industry's massive investment to expand capacity and switch to the Bessemer process and later to the open hearth furnace. Between 1867 and 1900 U.S. steel production increased more than 500 times from 22,000 tons to 11,400,000 tons and Bessemer steel rails, first made in the U.S that would last 18 years under heavy traffic, would come to replace the old wrought iron rail that could only endure two years under light service.[46] Taussig says that in 1881, British steel rails sold for $31 a ton, and if Americans imported them they paid a $28/ton tariff, giving $59/ton for an imported ton of rails. American mills charged $61 a ton—and made a huge profit, which was then reinvested into increased capacity, higher quality steels and more efficient production.[47] By 1897 the American steel rail price had dropped to $19.60 per ton compared to the British price at $21.00—not including the $7.84 duty charge—demonstrating that the tariff had performed its purpose of giving the industry time to become competitive.[48] Then the U.S. steel industry became an exporter of steel rail to England selling below the British price and during WW I would become the largest supplier of steel to the allies. From 1915 through 1918, the largest American steel company, U.S. Steel, alone delivered more steel each year than Germany and Austria-Hungary combined, totalling 99,700,000 tons during WW I.[49] The Republicans became masters of negotiating exceedingly complex arrangements so that inside each of their congressional districts there were more satisfied "winners" than disgruntled "losers". The tariff after 1880 was an ideological relic with no longer any economic rationale.[45]

text: Cleveland tariff policy[edit]

text: Democratic President Grover Cleveland redefined the issue in 1887, with his stunning attack on the tariff as inherently corrupt, opposed to true republicanism, and inefficient to boot: "When we consider that the theory of our institutions guarantees to every citizen the full enjoyment of all the fruits of his industry and enterprise... it is plain that the exaction of more than [minimal taxes] is indefensible extortion and a culpable betrayal of American fairness and justice."[50] The election of 1888 was fought primarily over the tariff issue, and Cleveland lost.[51] Republican Congressman William McKinley argued,

text: "Free foreign trade gives our money, our manufactures, and our markets to other nations to the injury of our labor, our tradespeople, and our farmers. Protection keeps money, markets, and manufactures at home for the benefit of our own people."

text: Democrats campaigned energetically against the high McKinley tariff of 1890, and scored sweeping gains that year; they restored Cleveland to the White House in 1892. The severe depression that started in 1893 ripped apart the Democratic party. Cleveland and the pro-business Bourbon Democrats insisted on a much lower tariff. His problem was that Democratic electoral successes had brought in Democratic congressmen from industrial districts who were willing to raise rates to benefit their constituents. The Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894 did lower overall rates from 50 percent to 42 percent, but contained so many concessions to protectionism that Cleveland refused to sign it (it became law anyway).[52]

text: McKinley tariff policy[edit]

text: McKinley campaigned heavily in 1896 on the high tariff as a positive solution to depression. Promising protection and prosperity to every economic sector, he won a smashing victory. The Republicans rushed through the Dingley tariff in 1897, boosting rates back to the 50 percent level. Democrats responded that the high rates created government sponsored "trusts" (monopolies) and led to higher consumer prices. McKinley won reelection by an even bigger landslide and started talking about a post-tariff era of reciprocal trade agreements. Reciprocity went nowhere; McKinley's vision was a half century too early.[53] The Republicans split bitterly on the Payne-Aldrich Tariff of 1909. Republican President Theodore Roosevelt (1901–1909) saw the tariff issue was ripping his party apart, so he postponed any consideration of it. The delicate balance flew apart on under Republican William Howard Taft. He campaigned for president in 1908 for tariff "reform", which everyone assumed meant lower rates. The House lowered rates with the Payne Bill, then sent it to the Senate where Nelson Wilmarth Aldrich mobilized high-rate Senators. Aldrich was a New England businessman and a master of the complexities of the tariff, the Midwestern Republican insurgents were rhetoricians and lawyers who distrusted the special interests and assumed the tariff was "sheer robbery" at the expense of the ordinary consumer. Rural America believed that its superior morality deserved special protection, while the dastardly immorality of the trusts—and cities generally—merited financial punishment. Aldrich baited them. Did the insurgents want lower tariffs? His wickedly clever Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act of 1909 lowered the protection on Midwestern farm products, while raising rates favorable to his Northeast.[54][55]

text: By 1913 with the new income tax generating revenue, the Democrats in Congress were able to reduce rates with the Underwood Tariff. The outbreak of war in 1914 made the impact of tariffs of much less importance compared to war contracts. When the Republicans returned to power the returned the rates to a high level in the Fordney–McCumber Tariff of 1922. The next raise came with the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 at the start of the Great Depression.

text: Tariff with Canada[edit]

text: The Canadian-American Reciprocity Treaty increased trade between 1855 and its ending in 1866. When it ended Canada turned to tariffs. The National Policy was a Canadian economic program introduced by John A. Macdonald's Conservative Party in 1879 after it returned to power. It had been an official policy, however, since 1876. It was based on high tariffs to protect Canada's manufacturing industry. Macdonald campaigned on the policy in the 1878 election, and handily beat the Liberal Party, which supported free trade.

text: Efforts to restore free trade with Canada collapsed when Canada rejected a proposed reciprocity treaty in fear of American imperialism in the 1911 federal election. Taft negotiated a reciprocity agreement with Canada, that had the effect of sharply lowering tariffs. Democrats supported the plan but Midwestern Republicans bitterly opposed it. Barnstorming the country for his agreement, Taft undiplomatically pointed to the inevitable integration of the North American economy, and suggested that Canada should come to a "parting of the ways" with Britain. Canada's Conservative Party, under the leadership of Robert Borden, now had an issue to regain power from the low-tariff Liberals; after a surge of pro-imperial anti-Americanism, the Conservatives won. Ottawa rejected reciprocity, reasserted the National Policy and went to London first for new financial and trade deals. The Payne Aldrich Tariff of 1909 actually changed little and had slight economic impact one way or the other, but the political impact was enormous. The insurgents felt tricked and defeated and swore vengeance against Wall Street and its minions Taft and Aldrich. The insurgency led to a fatal split down the middle in 1912 as the GOP lost its balance wheel.[56]

text: 1913 to present[edit]

text: Woodrow Wilson made a drastic lowering of tariff rates a major priority for his presidency. The 1913 Underwood Tariff cut rates, but the coming of World War I in 1914 radically revised trade patterns. Reduced trade and, especially, the new revenues generated by the federal income tax (bolstered by the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913) made tariffs much less important in terms of economic impact and political rhetoric.

text: The Wilson administration desired a 'revamping' of the current banking system, "...so that the banks may be the instruments, not the masters, of business and of individual enterprise and initiative.".[57] President Wilson achieved this in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Working with the bullish Senator Aldrich and former presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan, he perfected a way to centralize the banking system to allow Congress to closely allocate paper money production.[58] The Federal Reserve Act, with the Sixteenth Amendment of the Constitution, would create a trend of new forms of government funding.

text: When the Republicans regained power after the war they restored the usual high rates, with the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922. When the Great Depression hit, international trade shrank drastically. The crisis baffled the GOP, and it tried to raise tariffs again with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. This time it backfired, as Canada, Britain, Germany, France and other industrial countries retaliated with their own tariffs and special, bilateral trade deals. American imports and exports both went into a tailspin. Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Dealers made promises about lowering tariffs on a reciprocal country-by-country basis (which they did), hoping this would expand foreign trade (which it did not.) Frustrated, they gave much more attention to domestic remedies for the depression; by 1936 the tariff issue had faded from politics, and the revenue it raised was small. In World War II both tariffs and reciprocity were insignificant compared to trade channeled through Lend Lease.[59]

text: Tariffs and Great Depression[edit]

text: Most economists hold the opinion that the tariff act did not greatly worsen the great depression:

text: Milton Friedman also held the opinion that the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 did not cause the Great Depression. Douglas A. Irwin writes : "most economists, both liberal and conservative, doubt that Smoot Hawley played much of a role in the subsequent contraction."[60]

text: William Bernstein writes "most economic historians now believe that only a minuscule part of that huge loss of both world GDP and the United States’ GDP can be ascribed to the tariff wars "because trade was only nine percent of global output, not enough to account for the seventeen percent drop in GDP following the Crash. He thinks the damage done could not possibly have exceeded 2 percent of world GDP and tariff "didn't even significantly deepen the Great Depression."(A Splendid Exchange: How Trade Shaped the World)

text: Peter Temin, explains a tariff is an expansionary policy, like a devaluation as it diverts demand from foreign to home producers. He notes that exports were 7 percent of GNP in 1929, they fell by 1.5 percent of 1929 GNP in the next two years and the fall was offset by the increase in domestic demand from tariff. He concludes that contrary the popular argument, contractionary effect of the tariff was small. (Temin, P. 1989. Lessons from the Great Depression, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass)[61]

text: Nobel laureate Maurice Allais, thinks that tariff was rather helpful in the face of deregulation of competition in the global labor market and excessively loose credit prior to the Crash which, according to him, caused the crisis Financial and banking sectors. He notes higher trade barriers were partly a means to protect domestic demand from deflation and external disturbances. He obserses domestic production in the major industrialized countries fell faster than international trade contracted; if contraction of foreign trade had been the cause of the Depression, he argues, the opposite should have occurred. So, the decline in trade between 1929 and 1933 was a consequence of the Depression, not a cause. Most of the trade contraction took place between January 1930 and July 1932, before the introduction of the majority of protectionist measures, excepting limited American measures applied in the summer of 1930. It was the collapse of international liquidity that caused of the contraction of trade.[62]

text: Trade liberalization[edit]

text: Tariffs up to the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, were set by Congress after many months of testimony and negotiations. In 1934, the U.S. Congress, in a rare delegation of authority, passed the Reciprocal Tariff Act of 1934, which authorized the executive branch to negotiate bilateral tariff reduction agreements with other countries. The prevailing view then was that trade liberalization may help stimulate economic growth. However, no one country was willing to liberalize unilaterally. Between 1934 and 1945, the executive branch negotiated over 32 bilateral trade liberalization agreements with other countries. The belief that low tariffs led to a more prosperous country are now the predominant belief with some exceptions. Multilateralism is embodied in the seven tariff reduction rounds that occurred between 1948 and 1994. In each of these "rounds", all General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) members came together to negotiate mutually agreeable trade liberalization packages and reciprocal tariff rates. In the Uruguay round in 1994, the World Trade Organization (WTO) was established to help establish uniform tariff rates.

text: Presently only about 30% of all import goods are subject to tariffs in the United States, the rest are on the free list. The "average" tariffs now charged by the United States are at a historic low. The list of negotiated tariffs are listed on the Harmonized Tariff Schedule as put out by the United States International Trade Commission.[63]

text: Post World War II[edit]

text: After the war the U.S. promoted the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) established in 1947, to minimize tariffs and other restrictions, and to liberalize trade among all capitalist countries. In 1995 GATT became the World Trade Organization (WTO); with the collapse of Communism its open markets/low tariff ideology became dominant worldwide in the 1990s.

text: American industry and labor prospered after World War II, but hard times set in after 1970. For the first time there was stiff competition from low-cost producers around the globe. Many rust belt industries faded or collapsed, especially the manufacture of steel, TV sets, shoes, toys, textiles and clothing. Toyota and Nissan threatened the giant domestic auto industry. In the late 1970s Detroit and the auto workers union combined to fight for protection. They obtained not high tariffs, but a voluntary restriction of imports from the Japanese government. Quotas were two-country diplomatic agreements that had the same protective effect as high tariffs, but did not invite retaliation from third countries. By limiting the number of Japanese automobiles that could be imported, quotas inadvertently helped Japanese companies push into larger, and more expensive market segments. The Japanese producers, limited by the number of cars they could export to America, opted to increase the value of their exports to maintain revenue growth. This action threatened the American producers' historical hold on the mid- and large-size car markets.[64]

text: The Chicken tax was a 1964 response by President Lyndon B. Johnson to tariffs placed by Germany (then West Germany) on importation of US chicken. Beginning in 1962, during the President Kennedy administration, the US accused Europe of unfairly restricting imports of American poultry at the request of West German chicken farmers. Diplomacy failed, and in January 1964, two months after taking office, President Johnson retaliated by imposing a 25 percent tax on all imported light trucks. This directly affected the German built Volkswagen vans. Officially it was explained that the light trucks tax would offset the dollar amount of imports of Volkswagen vans from West Germany with the lost American sales of chickens to Europe. But audio tapes from the Johnson White House reveal that in January 1964, President Johnson was attempting to convince United Auto Workers's president Walter Reuther, not to initiate a strike just prior the 1964 election and to support the president's civil rights platform. Reuther in turn wanted Johnson to respond to Volkswagen's increased shipments to the United States.[65]

text: 1980s to present[edit]

text: During the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations Republicans abandoned protectionist policies, and came out against quotas and in favor of the GATT/WTO policy of minimal economic barriers to global trade. Free trade with Canada came about as a result of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement of 1987, which led in 1994 to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It was based on Reagan's plan to enlarge the scope of the market for American firms to include Canada and Mexico. President Bill Clinton, with strong Republican support in 1993, pushed NAFTA through Congress over the vehement objection of labor unions.[66][67]

text: Likewise, in 2000 Clinton worked with Republicans to give China entry into WTO and "most favored nation" trading status (i.e., the same low tariffs promised to any other WTO member). NAFTA and WTO advocates promoted an optimistic vision of the future, with prosperity to be based on intellectuals skills and managerial know-how more than on routine hand labor. They promised that free trade meant lower prices for consumers. Opposition to liberalized trade came increasingly from labor unions, who argued that this system also meant lower wages and fewer jobs for American workers who could not compete against wages of less than a dollar an hour. The shrinking size and diminished political clout of these unions repeatedly left them on the losing side.[68]

text: Despite overall decreases in international tariffs, some tariffs have been more resistant to change. For example, due partially to tariff pressure from the European Common Agricultural Policy, US agricultural subsidies have seen little decrease over the past few decades, even in the face of recent pressure from the WTO during the latest Doha talks.[69]

text: Smuggling and Coast Guard[edit]

text: Historically, high tariffs have led to high rates of smuggling. The United States Revenue Cutter Service was established by Secretary Hamilton in 1790 as an armed maritime law and custom enforcement service. Today it remains the primary maritime law enforcement force in the United States.

text: The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is a federal law enforcement agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security charged with regulating and facilitating international trade, collecting customs (import duties or tariffs approved by the U.S. Congress), and enforcing U.S. regulations, including trade, customs and immigration. They man most border crossing stations and ports. When shipments of goods arrive at a border crossing or port, customs officers inspect the contents and charge a tax according to the tariff formula for that product. Usually the goods cannot continue on their way until the custom duty is paid. Custom duties are one of the easiest taxes to collect, and the cost of collection is small.

text: Tariffs and historical American politicians[edit]

text: In 1896, the GOP platform pledged to “renew and emphasize our allegiance to the policy of protection, as the bulwark of American industrial independence, and the foundation of development and prosperity. This true American policy taxes foreign products and encourages home industry. It puts the burden of revenue on foreign goods; it secures the American market for the American producer. It upholds the American standard of wages for the American workingman.”

text: George Washington[edit]

text: "I use no porter or cheese in my family, but such as is made in America,” the inaugural President George Washington wrote, boasting that these domestic products are “of an excellent quality.”

text: One of the first acts of Congress Washington signed was a tariff among whose stated purpose was "the encouragement and protection of manufactures."[citation needed]

text: In his 1790 State of the Union Address, Washington justified his tariff policy for national security reasons:

text: A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies[70]

text: Thomas Jefferson[edit]

text: As President Thomas Jefferson wrote in explaining why his views had evolved to favor more protectionist policies: "In so complicated a science as political economy, no one axiom can be laid down as wise and expedient for all times and circumstances, and for their contraries."

text: After the War of 1812, Jefferson's position began to resemble that of Washington, some level of protection was necessary to secure the nation's political independence. He said:

text: experience has taught me that manufactures are now as necessary to our independence as to our comfort: and if those who quote me as of a different opinion will keep pace with me in purchasing nothing foreign where an equivalent of domestic fabric can be obtained, without regard to difference of price[71]

text: Henry Clay[edit]

text: In 1832, then the United States Senator from Kentucky, Henry Clay said about his disdain for "free traders"[9] that "it is not free trade that they are recommending to our acceptance. It is in effect, the British colonial system that we are invited to adopt; and, if their policy prevail, it will lead substantially to the re-colonization of these States, under the commercial dominion of Great Britain."

text: Clay said:

text: When gentlemen have succeeded in their design of an immediate or gradual destruction of the American System, what is their substitute? Free trade! Free trade! The call for free trade is as unavailing as the cry of a spoiled child, in its nurse's arms, for the moon, or the stars that glitter in the firmament of heaven. It never has existed; it never will exist. Trade implies, at least two parties. To be free, it should be fair, equal and reciprocal.

text: Clay explained that "equal and reciprocal" free trade "never has existed; [and] it never will exist." He warned against practicing "romantic trade philanthropy… which invokes us to continue to purchase the produce of foreign industry, without regard to the state or prosperity of our own." Clay made clear that he was "utterly and irreconcilably opposed" to trade which would "throw wide open our ports to foreign productions" without reciprocation.

text: Andrew Jackson[edit]

text: Henry Clay's longtime rival and political opponent, President Andrew Jackson, in explaining his support for a tariff, wrote:

text: We have been too long subject to the policy of the British merchants. It is time we should become a little more Americanized, and, instead of feeding the paupers and laborers of Europe, feed our own, or else, in a short time, by continuing our present policy, we shall all be paupers ourselves.

text: James Monroe[edit]

text: In 1822, President James Monroe observed that "whatever may be the abstract doctrine in favor of unrestricted commerce," the conditions necessary for its success—reciprocity and international peace—"has never occurred and can not be expected." Monroe said, "strong reasons… impose on us the obligation to cherish and sustain our manufactures."

text: Abraham Lincoln[edit]

text: President Abraham Lincoln declared, "Give us a protective tariff and we will have the greatest nation on earth." Lincoln warned that "the abandonment of the protective policy by the American Government… must produce want and ruin among our people."

text: Lincoln similarly said that, "if a duty amount to full protection be levied upon an article" that could be produced domestically, "at no distant day, in consequence of such duty," the domestic article "will be sold to our people cheaper than before."

text: Additionally, Lincoln argued that based on economies of scale, any temporary increase in costs resulting from a tariff would eventually decrease as the domestic manufacturer produced more.

text: Lincoln did not see a tariff as a tax on low-income Americans because it would only burden the consumer according to the amount the consumer consumed. By the tariff system, the whole revenue is paid by the consumers of foreign goods… the burthen of revenue falls almost entirely on the wealthy and luxurious few, while the substantial and laboring many who live at home, and upon home products, go entirely free.

text: Lincoln argued that a tariff system was less intrusive than domestic taxation: The tariff is the cheaper system, because the duties, being collected in large parcels at a few commercial points, will require comparatively few officers in their collection; while by the direct tax system, the land must be literally covered with assessors and collectors, going forth like swarms of Egyptian locusts, devouring every blade of grass and other green thing.[72]

text: William McKinley[edit]

text: President William McKinley stated the United States' stance under the Republican Party as:

text: Under free trade the trader is the master and the producer the slave. Protection is but the law of nature, the law of self-preservation, of self-development, of securing the highest and best destiny of the race of man[73]. [It is said] that protection is immoral.... Why, if protection builds up and elevates 63,000,000 [the U.S. population] of people, the influence of those 63,000,000 of people elevates the rest of the world. We cannot take a step in the pathway of progress without benefiting mankind everywhere. Well, they say, 'Buy where you can buy the cheapest'.... Of course, that applies to labor as to everything else. Let me give you a maxim that is a thousand times better than that, and it is the protection maxim: 'Buy where you can pay the easiest.' And that spot of earth is where labor wins its highest rewards.[74]

text: [Free trade] destroys the dignity and independence of American labor… It will take away from the people of this country who work for a living—and the majority of them live by the sweat of their faces—it will take from them heart and home and hope. It will be self-destruction.[75]

text: He also rejected the "cheaper is better" argument outright:

text: They [free traders] say, 'Buy where you can buy the cheapest.' That is one of their maxims… Of course, that applies to labor as to everything else. Let me give you a maxim that is a thousand times better than that, and it is the protection maxim: 'Buy where you can pay the easiest.' And that spot of earth is where labor wins its highest rewards.

text: They say, if you had not the Protective Tariff things would be a little cheaper. Well, whether a thing is cheap or whether it is dear depends on what we can earn by our daily labor. Free trade cheapens the product by cheapening the producer. Protection cheapens the product by elevating the producer.

text: The protective tariff policy of the Republicans… has made the lives of the masses of our countrymen sweeter and brighter, and has entered the homes of America carrying comfort and cheer and courage. It gives a premium to human energy, and awakens the noblest aspiration in the breasts of men. Our own experience shows that it is the best for our citizenship and our civilization and that it opens up a higher and better destiny for our people.[76]

text: Theodore Roosevelt[edit]

text: President Theodore Roosevelt believed that America's economic growth was due to the protective tariffs, which helped her industrialize. He acknowledged this in his State of the Union address from 1902:

text: The country has acquiesced in the wisdom of the protective-tariff principle. It is exceedingly undesirable that this system should be destroyed or that there should be violent and radical changes therein. Our past experience shows that great prosperity in this country has always come under a protective tariff.[77]


document_title: Prime meridian (Greenwich)

question_text: three countries in africa that the greenwich meridian passes through

text: Prime meridian (Greenwich)

text: History[edit]

text: Before the establishment of a common meridian, most maritime countries established their own prime meridian, usually passing through the country in question. In 1721, Great Britain established its own meridian passing through an early transit circle at the newly established Royal Observatory at Greenwich. The meridian was moved around 10 metres or so east on three occasions as transit circles with newer and better instruments were built, on each occasion next door to the existing one. This was to allow uninterrupted observation during each new construction. The final meridian was established as an imaginary line from the north pole to the south pole passing through the Airy transit circle. This became Great Britain's meridian in 1851.[5] For all practical purposes of the period, the changes as the meridian was moved went unnoticed.

text: Transit instruments are installed to be perpendicular to the local level (which is a plane perpendicular to a plumb line). In 1884, the International Meridian Conference took place to establish an internationally recognised single meridian. The meridian chosen was that which passed through the Airy transit circle at Greenwich and it became the prime meridian.

text: At around the time of this conference, scientists were making measurements to determine the deflection of the vertical on a large scale.[6] One might expect that plumb lines set up in various locations, if extended downward, would all pass through a single point, the centre of the Earth, but this is not the case, primarily due to the Earth being an ellipsoid, not a sphere. The downward extended plumb lines don't even all intersect the rotation axis of the Earth; this much smaller effect is due to the uneven distribution of the Earth's mass. To make computations feasible, scientists defined ellipsoids of revolution; a given ellipsoid would be a good compromise for measurements in a given area, such as a country or continent. The difference between the direction of a plumb line or vertical, and a line perpendicular to the surface of the ellipsoid of revolution—a normal to said ellipsoid—at a particular observatory, is the deflection of the vertical.[7]

text: When the Airy transit circle was built, a mercury basin was used to align the telescope to the perpendicular. Thus the circle was aligned with the local vertical or plumb line, which is deflected slightly from the normal, or line perpendicular, to the reference ellipsoid used to define geodetic latitude and longitude in the International Terrestrial Reference Frame (which is nearly the same as the WGS-84 system used by GPS). While the local vertical defined at the Airy transit circle still points to the modern celestial meridian (the intersection of the prime meridian plane with the celestial sphere), it does not pass through the Earth's rotation axis. As a result of this, the ITRF zero meridian, defined by a plane passing through the Earth's rotation axis, is 102 metres to the east of the prime meridian. A 2015 analysis by Malys et al. shows the offset between the Airy transit circle and the ITRF/WGS 84 meridians can be explained by this deflection of the vertical alone; other possible sources of the offset that have been proposed in the past are smaller than the current uncertainty in the deflection of the vertical near the observatory. The astronomical longitude of the Greenwich prime meridian was found to be 0.19″ ± 0.47″ East, i.e. the plane defined by the local vertical on the Greenwich prime meridian and the plane passing through the Earth's rotation axis on the ITRF zero meridian are effectively parallel. However, the claim, found, e.g., in a BBC article that this difference between astronomical and geodetic coordinates means that any measurements of transit time across the IRTF zero meridian will occur 0.352 seconds (or 0.353 sidereal seconds) before the transit across the "intended meridian"[8] is based on a failure of understanding. The explanation by Malys et al.[4] on the other hand is both lucid and correct.

text: The meridian today[edit]

text: As of 2017 the Greenwich meridian passes through:

text:
United Kingdom,
 France,
 Spain,
 Algeria,
 Mali,
 Burkina Faso,
 Togo,
 Ghana,
 Queen Maud Land in Antarctica.

tag: ul


document_title: List of FIFA World Cup finals

question_text: who won the last world cup soccer tournament

text: List of FIFA World Cup finals

text: List of finals

text:
Key to the list of finals

Match was won during extra time

Match was won on a penalty shoot-out

tag: table

text: The "Year" column refers to the year the World Cup was held, and wikilinks to the article about that tournament. The wikilinks in the "Final score" column point to the article about that tournament's final game. Links in the "Winners" and "Runners-up" columns point to the articles for the national football teams of the countries, not the articles for the countries.

text:
List of finals matches, their venues and locations, the finalists, and final scores

Year

Winners

Final score[2]

Runners-up

Venue

Location

Attendance

References

1930

Uruguay

4–2

 Argentina

Estadio Centenario

Montevideo, Uruguay

80,000

[7][8]

1934

Italy

  2–1[n 3]

 Czechoslovakia

Stadio Nazionale PNF

Rome, Italy

50,000

[9][10]

1938

Italy

4–2

 Hungary

Stade Olympique de Colombes

Paris, France

45,000

[11][12]

1950[n 4]

Uruguay

2–1[n 5]

 Brazil

Estádio do Maracanã

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

199,854[13]

[14][15]

1954

West Germany

3–2

 Hungary

Wankdorf Stadium

Bern, Switzerland

60,000

[16][17]

1958

Brazil

5–2

 Sweden

Råsunda Stadium

Solna, Sweden

51,800

[18][19]

1962

Brazil

3–1

 Czechoslovakia

Estadio Nacional

Santiago, Chile

69,000

[20][21]

1966

England

  4–2[n 6]

 West Germany

Wembley Stadium

London, England

93,000

[22][23]

1970

Brazil

4–1

 Italy

Estadio Azteca

Mexico City, Mexico

107,412

[24][25]

1974

West Germany

2–1

 Netherlands

Olympiastadion

Munich, West Germany

75,200

[26][27]

1978

Argentina

  3–1[n 7]

 Netherlands

Estadio Monumental

Buenos Aires, Argentina

71,483

[28][29]

1982

Italy

3–1

 West Germany

Santiago Bernabéu

Madrid, Spain

90,000

[30][31]

1986

Argentina

3–2

 West Germany

Estadio Azteca

Mexico City, Mexico

114,600

[32][33]

1990

West Germany

1–0

 Argentina

Stadio Olimpico

Rome, Italy

73,603

[34][35]

1994

Brazil

  0–0[n 8]

 Italy

Rose Bowl

Pasadena, United States

94,194

[36][37]

1998

France

3–0

 Brazil

Stade de France

Saint-Denis, France

80,000

[38][39]

2002

Brazil

2–0

 Germany

International Stadium

Yokohama, Japan

69,029

[40][41]

2006

Italy

  1–1[n 9]

 France

Olympiastadion

Berlin, Germany

69,000

[42][43]

2010

Spain

  1–0[n 10]

 Netherlands

Soccer City

Johannesburg, South Africa

84,490

[44][45]

2014

Germany

  1–0[n 11]

 Argentina

Estádio do Maracanã

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

74,738

[46][47]

2018

France

4–2

 Croatia

Luzhniki Stadium

Moscow, Russia

78,011

Upcoming finals

Year

Team 1

v

Team 2

Venue

Location

Attendance

References

2022

Lusail Iconic Stadium

Lusail, Qatar

2026

TBD

United States

text: Results

text:
Results by nation

National team

Wins

Runners-up

Total finals

Years won

Years runners-up

 Brazil

5

2

7

1958, 1962, 1970, 1994, 2002

1950, 1998

 Germany

4

4

8

1954, 1974, 1990, 2014

1966, 1982, 1986, 2002

 Italy

4

2

6

1934, 1938, 1982, 2006

1970, 1994

 Argentina

2

3

5

1978, 1986

1930, 1990, 2014

 France

2

1

3

1998, 2018

2006

 Uruguay

2

0

2

1930, 1950

–

 England

1

0

1

1966

–

 Spain

1

0

1

2010

–

 Netherlands

0

3

3

–

1974, 1978, 2010

 Czechoslovakia

0

2

2

–

1934, 1962

 Hungary

0

2

2

–

1938, 1954

 Sweden

0

1

1

–

1958

 Croatia

0

1

1

–

2018

text:
Results by confederation

Confederation

Appearances

Winners

Runners-up

UEFA

28

12

16

CONMEBOL

14

9

5

text: Footnotes

text:
Jump up ^ This follows FIFA's consideration that the national teams of West Germany/Germany, Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic, Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro/Serbia, and USSR/Russia are combined respectively for record-keeping.[3]

Jump up ^ Technically the 1958 final was also between two first timers, but Brazil's 1950 group game defeat is generally counted as a previous "final" appearance for the team.

Jump up ^ Score was 1–1 after 90 minutes.[9][10]

Jump up ^ The 1950 FIFA World Cup did not have a final, rather, the tournament was decided by a 4-team round robin phase.

Jump up ^ Not the final but the decisive match of the final group stage.

Jump up ^ Score was 2–2 after 90 minutes.[22][23]

Jump up ^ Score was 1–1 after 90 minutes.[28][29]

Jump up ^ Score was 0–0 after 120 minutes. Brazil won 3–2 on penalties.[36][37]

Jump up ^ Score was 1–1 after 120 minutes. Italy won 5–3 on penalties.[42][43]

Jump up ^ Score was 0–0 after 90 minutes.[44][45]

Jump up ^ Score was 0–0 after 90 minutes.[46][47]

tag: ol


document_title: They Died with Their Boots On

question_text: song from they died with their boots on

question_tokens: song from they died with their boots on

text: They Died with Their Boots On

text: Plot[edit]

text: George Armstrong Custer (Flynn) enters West Point and quickly establishes himself as a troublemaker by showing up in an outlandish uniform he had designed himself, which makes him appear to be a visiting foreign general. After the misunderstanding, he signs up as a cadet and begins to stack up demerits for pranks and a general disregard for rules while at the Point. When the Civil War breaks out, Custer is at the bottom of his class.

text: Custer's relationship with Libbie Bacon (from Monroe, Michigan) begins at the Point; walking a punishment tour, he is not allowed to speak, but he is approached by Libbie who asks him for directions. As soon as his punishment ends, he runs after her, explaining his rude silence, and asking if he may come by her front porch that evening. After speaking with Libbie, Custer and other members of his class are graduated early and ordered to report to Washington, D.C. for assignment. As a result, Custer misses his evening appointment.

text: Once in the capital, Custer makes the acquaintance of Gen. Winfield Scott (Sydney Greenstreet) while dining, who then aids him in getting placed with the 2nd U.S. Cavalry. He becomes a war hero after disregarding a superior's orders during a crucial battle, successfully defending a bridge for the Union infantry. He is awarded a medal while recovering in a hospital after being shot in the shoulder; he then gets leave to return to his home in Monroe, Michigan. He meets Libbie at her home but her father, who has been the butt of Custer's joke earlier that day, orders him to leave. Custer returns to his regiment.

text: Due to a miscommunication from the Department of War, he is promoted to the rank of Brigadier General and takes command of the Michigan Brigade at the Battle of Gettysburg. He wins the day, and many victories follow him thereafter on his path to the Confederate surrender at Appomattox, which ends the Civil War.

text: Upon returning home to Monroe as a war hero, Custer marries Libbie in a big ceremony, which includes a regimental honor guard, but he soon grows bored with civilian life and begins drinking too much. Libbie visits Custer's old friend Gen. Scott and begs him to assign Custer to a regiment again. He agrees, and Custer is given a Lt. Colonel's commission in the Dakota Territory.

text: When Custer and Libbie arrive at Fort Lincoln, Custer finds the soldiers a drunken, rowdy and undisciplined lot in need of firm leadership. His old West Point enemy, Ned Sharp (Arthur Kennedy), who has a government license to run the fort's trading post and saloon, is providing Winchester repeating rifles to the local Native Americans. Furious, Custer stops the rifle sales and permanently closes the saloon. He then instills proper military discipline in his men and introduces a regimental song, "Garryowen", both of which quickly bring fame to the U.S. 7th Cavalry under Custer's command. The 7th has many engagements with Lakota tribal chief Crazy Horse (Anthony Quinn), who eventually offers peace, wanting a treaty that will protect the sacred Black Hills; Custer and Washington sign the treaty, but soon it is bankrupting Sharp's trading posts. Sharp spreads a rumor that large gold deposits have been discovered in the Black Hills. American settlers stream into the area in violation of the treaty, but Custer and his troops permit no infractions. To embarrass Custer, Sharp passes out free bottles of liquor to Custer's men hours before they drunkenly pass in revue, in complete disarray, before Commissioner Taipe, a politician in league with Sharp. Custer punches both Sharp and the commissioner in anger, and he is quickly relieved of his command.

text: Custer hears from Libbie about Sharp's attempts to start a gold rush in the Black Hills, a plan that would bring him much business and large profits. Outraged, Custer takes the information to the U.S. Congress, but they only ridicule him. When news arrives that the presence of gold miners has led to open conflict between the Indians and U.S. troops, Custer appeals in person to President Ulysses S. Grant, one soldier to another, who restores him to command.

text: Custer comes to realize that his men are marching into a valley where thousands of Indians are waiting. Knowing they will have no chance, he has a final, emotion-filled goodbye with Libbie and leads his men into battle. Arrows and bullets fly and horses trample into the valley, where all of Custer's forces are killed. Earlier, Sharp has been forced by Custer to ride with the 7th "to Hell or glory. It depends on one's point of view", Custer tells him, "At least you can take glory with you". Sharp admits with his dying breath that Custer may have been right about "glory". Custer is killed by a rifle shot fired by Crazy Horse.

text: A few corrupt politicians have goaded the western tribes into war for personal profit, threatening the survival of all white settlers in the Dakota Territories. Custer and his men have given their lives at the Battle of the Little Bighorn to delay the Indians' advance and prevent this slaughter. A letter left behind by Custer, now considered his dying declaration, names the culprits and absolves the Indians of all responsibility; Custer has won his final campaign.

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Errol Flynn as George Armstrong Custer
Olivia de Havilland as Elizabeth Bacon Custer
Arthur Kennedy as Ned Sharp
Charley Grapewin as California Joe
Gene Lockhart as Samuel Bacon
Anthony Quinn as Crazy Horse
George P. Huntley Jr as Lt. 'Queen's Own' Butler
Stanley Ridges as Maj. Romulus Taipe
John Litel as Gen. Phillip Sheridan
Walter Hampden as William Sharp
Sydney Greenstreet as Lt. Gen. Winfield Scott
Regis Toomey as Fitzhugh Lee
Hattie McDaniel as Callie
Minor Watson as Sen. Smith
Joseph Crehan as President Ulysses S. Grant

text: Production[edit]

text: Development[edit]

text: The Warner Bros. script was an original screenplay and was announced in early 1941 as a vehicle for Errol Flynn.[4] It was to be made after Warner's aviation film Dive Bomber, another feature starring Flynn.[5]

text: Filming[edit]

text: The film is frequently confused with Michael Curtiz's Santa Fe Trail, released the previous year, in which Flynn portrayed Jeb Stuart and Ronald Reagan played Custer, also featuring Olivia de Havilland as Flynn's leading lady.

text: In September 1941, during filming, Flynn collapsed from exhaustion.[6]

text: Three men were killed during the filming. One fell from a horse and broke his neck. Another stuntman had a heart attack. The third, actor Jack Budlong, insisted on using a real saber to lead a cavalry charge under artillery fire. When an explosive charge sent him flying off his horse, he landed on his sword, impaling himself.[7]

text: The film reunited Gone With The Wind cast members Olivia de Havilland and Hattie McDaniel.

text: Custer's last stand[edit]

text: While the rest of the film was shot in various locales throughout southern California, the filmmakers had hoped to capture this climactic sequence near the actual location of the Battle of the Little Bighorn. Owing to scheduling and budget constraints, however, the finale of the film was relegated to a rural area outside Los Angeles.

text: The film shows Custer leading his troops in a saber charge on an Indian party, in the course of which they are surrounded and Custer, being the last man alive, is killed. In reality, the men had boxed their sabers and sent them to the rear before the battle; site evidence, along with some Indian accounts, indicates that Custer may have been among the first to die. He is also shown during the battle with his trademark long hair when, in reality, he had cut it short just prior to the Little Bighorn campaign.

text: Crazy Horse, played by Anthony Quinn, is the only individualized Indian appearing in scenes and represents the "Red Man", whose lifestyle is coming to an end. Quinn is one of the few actors of indigenous American descent in the film.[8] Only 16 of the extras used were Sioux Indians. The rest of the Native American warriors were mostly portrayed by Filipino extras.

text: Soundtrack[edit]

text: The film score was composed by Max Steiner. He adapted George Armstrong Custer's favorite song, "Garryowen", for use in the score. Custer knew the song while he was still at West Point, where he is said to have performed it in a talent show. In the film Custer hears the song being played on a piano by former English soldier, now a U.S. Army officer, Lt. 'Queen's Own' Butler, who claims its origin is Australian. This connection is apocryphal. It is actually a traditional Irish drinking song, much beloved by the cavalry for its galloping rhythm.The best movie of the period in The Fighting 69th, the famous New York regiment. This was also a film with James Cagney, Pat O'Brien, (George Brent and many other Irish actors. Jeffrey Lynn portrayed Joyce Kilmer, the poet and soul of the 69th. Warner Brothers recycled some of the music from the film and variations of it can be heard in Silver River and Rocky Mountain, both starring Errol Flynn, and The Searchers starring John Wayne.

text: Reception[edit]

text: Box office[edit]

text: They Died with Their Boots On grossed $2.55 million for Warner Bros. Pictures in 1941, making it the studio's second biggest hit of the year.[2] It made the studio a profit of $1.5 million.[9]

text: Home media[edit]

text: Like Errol Flynn's earlier film Sea Hawk, They Died With Their Boots On was digitally colorized in the early 1990s. This version was released on VHS tape in 1998 by Turner Entertainment and Warner Bros. Entertainment.[10] The original black-and-white film was released on DVD in 2005 by Turner Entertainment and Warner Bros. Entertainment.


document_title: Jeremy (song)

question_text: what key is jeremy by pearl jam in

question_tokens: what key is jeremy by pearl jam in

text: Jeremy (song)

text: Origin and recording[edit]

text: "Jeremy" features lyrics written by vocalist Eddie Vedder and music written by bassist Jeff Ament. The song's music was written before the band went out on tour in support of Alice in Chains in February 1991.[5]

text: Ament on the song:

text: I already had two pieces of music that I wrote on acoustic guitar...with the idea that I would play them on a Hamer 12-string bass I had just ordered. When the bass arrived, one of [the pieces] became "Jeremy"....I had an idea for the outro when we were recording it the second time...I overdubbed a twelve-string bass, and we added a cello. That was big-time production, for us....Rick [Parashar]’s a supertalented engineer-musician...Stone [Gossard, Pearl Jam’s rhythm guitarist] was sick one day, and Ed, Rick and I conjured up the art piece that opens and closes the song. That was so fun—I wanted to make a whole record like that.[6]

text: In another interview, Ament stated:

text: We knew it was a good song, but it was tough getting it to feel right—for the chorus to sit back and the outro to push over the top. The tune went from practically not making it on the record to being one of the best takes. I'm not sure if it's the best song on the album but I think it's the best take. On "Jeremy" I always heard this other melody in the choruses and the end, and it never sounded good on guitar or bass. So we brought in a cello player which inspired a background vocal, and those things made the song really happen. Most of the time if something doesn't work right away, I just say fuck it—but this was an instance when perseverance paid off.[5]

text: Composition[edit]

text: This section  possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (September 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: "Jeremy" is in the key of A, and intertwines the parallel modes of major and minor frequently. It features prominent usage of Ament's 12-string Hamer bass guitar, which is pivotal to the sound of the introduction and end of the recording. The song starts off with the bassline and quiet harmonic notes also on the 12-string bass, and continues in a sedate vein until after the second chorus, when densely layered guitars and vocals gradually enter. At the end the instruments gradually fade out until all that is audible is a clean guitar and the 12-string bass, like the intro. Both instruments play a descending minor key melody, fading out with one single note.[citation needed]

text: Lyrics[edit]

text: "Jeremy" is based on two different true stories. The song takes its main inspiration from a newspaper article about a 15-year-old boy named Jeremy Wade Delle from Richardson, Texas who shot himself in front of his teacher and his second period English class of 30 students on the morning of January 8, 1991.[2][7] In a 2009 interview, Vedder said that he felt "the need to take that small article and make something of it—to give that action, to give it reaction, to give it more importance."[8]

text: Delle was described by schoolmates as "real quiet" and known for "acting sad."[2] After coming into class late that morning, Delle was told to get an admittance slip from the school office. He left the classroom, and returned with a .357 Magnum revolver. Delle walked to the front of the classroom, announced "Miss, I got what I really went for", put the barrel of the firearm in his mouth, and pulled the trigger before his teacher or classmates could react.[2] Lisa Moore, a schoolmate, knew Jeremy from the in-school suspension program: "He and I would pass notes back and forth and he would talk about life and stuff," she said. "He signed all of his notes, 'Write back.' But on Monday he wrote, 'Later days.' I didn't know what to make of it. But I never thought this would happen."[2]

text: When asked about the song, Vedder explained:

text: It came from a small paragraph in a paper which means you kill yourself and you make a big old sacrifice and try to get your revenge. That all you're gonna end up with is a paragraph in a newspaper. Sixty-four degrees and cloudy in a suburban neighborhood. That's the beginning of the video and that's the same thing in the end; it does nothing … nothing changes. The world goes on and you're gone. The best revenge is to live on and prove yourself. Be stronger than those people. And then you can come back.[9]

text: The second story the song is based on, involved a student that Vedder knew from his junior high school in San Diego, California. He elaborated further in a 1991 interview:

text: I actually knew somebody in junior high school, in San Diego, California, that did the same thing, just about, didn't take his life but ended up shooting up an oceanography room. I remember being in the halls and hearing it and I had actually had altercations with this kid in the past. I was kind of a rebellious fifth-grader and I think we got in fights and stuff. So it's a bit about this kid named Jeremy and it's also a bit about a kid named Brian that I knew and I don't know...the song, I think it says a lot. I think it goes somewhere...and a lot of people interpret it different ways and it's just been recently that I've been talking about the true meaning behind it and I hope no one's offended and believe me, I think of Jeremy when I sing it.[10]

text: Release and reception[edit]

text: While the "Jeremy" single was released commercially to international markets in 1992, the commercial single was not released in the United States until June 27, 1995 and was only available as a more expensive import version beforehand. "Jeremy" was released as a single in 1992 with the previously unreleased B-sides "Footsteps" and "Yellow Ledbetter", both of which can also be found on the compilation album, Lost Dogs (2003), the former as an alternate version, and the latter of which can also be found on the band's greatest hits compilation, rearviewmirror (Greatest Hits 1991–2003). "Jeremy" became the most successful song from Ten on the American rock charts. The song peaked at number five on the Billboard Mainstream Rock Tracks and Billboard Modern Rock Tracks charts. The "Jeremy" single has been certified gold by the RIAA.[11] At the 1993 Grammy Awards, "Jeremy" received nominations for Best Rock Song and Best Hard Rock Performance.[12]

text: Outside the United States, the single was released commercially in Australia, Austria, Brazil, Germany, Indonesia, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. In Canada, the song reached the top 40 on the Canadian Singles Chart. "Jeremy" reached the UK Top 20. It peaked at number 93 in Germany, reached the top 40 in New Zealand, and was a top ten success in Ireland.

text: Chris True of Allmusic said that "Jeremy" "is where Pearl Jam mania galvanized and propelled the band past the 'Seattle sound' and into rock royalty." He described it as a "classic buildup tune" and proclaimed it as "arguably Pearl Jam's most earnest work and one of their most successful singles."[13] Stephen M. Deusner of Pitchfork Media said, "'Jeremy' is the most pat Freudian psychodrama on an album full of them."[14]

text: Music video[edit]

text: Original video[edit]

text: In July 1991, Vedder became acquainted with photographer Chris Cuffaro. Vedder suggested Cuffaro film a music video for the band. On Vedder's insistence, Epic gave Cuffaro permission to use any song off Ten. He chose "Jeremy", which was not intended to be released as a single at the time.[15] Epic refused to fund the clip, forcing Cuffaro to finance it himself.[16]

text: Cuffaro raised the money by taking out a loan and selling all of his furniture and half his guitar collection.[17] He first filmed several scenes of a young actor, Eric Schubert, playing the part of Jeremy. Cuffaro and his crew spent a day filming Schubert playing the part of Jeremy. The scenes with Pearl Jam were filmed in a warehouse on Pico Boulevard in Los Angeles, California on October 4, 1991. A revolving platform was rigged at the center of the set, and the members of the band climbed on it individually to give the illusion of the song being performed as a crew member spun the giant turntable by hand. Vedder appeared with black gaffer's tape around his biceps as a mourning band for the real Jeremy.

text: Official video[edit]

text: By the time Cuffaro finished his music video, Epic had warmed up to the idea of releasing "Jeremy" as a single. Music video director Mark Pellington was brought in to handle the project.[18] Pellington said that he "wasn't a huge fan of the band, but the lyrics intrigued me—I spoke to Eddie, and I really got connected to his passion."[19] Pellington and Pearl Jam convened in Kings Cross, London, England in June 1992 to film a new version of the "Jeremy" music video.[20]

text: Working with veteran editor Bruce Ashley, Pellington's high-budget video incorporated rapid-fire editing and juxtaposition of sound, still images, graphics and text elements with live action sequences to create a collage effect. The classroom scenes were filmed at Bayonne High School in New Jersey.[21] The video also featured many close-ups of Vedder performing the song, with the other members of Pearl Jam shown only briefly. Some of the stock imagery was similar to the original video, but when it came to the band Pellington focused on Vedder. Vedder thus serves as the video's narrator. Ament said, "It was mostly Mark and Ed’s vision. In fact, I think it would have been a better video if the rest of the band wasn’t in it. I know some of us were having a hard time with the movie-type video that Mark made, because our two previous videos were made live."[6] Jeremy was played by 12-year-old Trevor Wilson, in his only acting role. Wilson died in 2016 at age 36 in a drowning accident in Puerto Rico.[22]

text: The video premiered on August 1, 1992,[18] and quickly found its way into heavy rotation on MTV. Michele Romero of Entertainment Weekly described the music video as "an Afterschool Special from hell." She stated that "when Eddie Vedder yowls the lyric 'Jeremy spoke in class today,' a chill frosts your cranium to the point of queasy enjoyment."[23] The success of the "Jeremy" video helped catapult Pearl Jam to fame. Pellington stated, "I think that video tapped into something that has always been around and will always be around. You're always going to have peer pressure, you're always going to have adolescent rage, you're always going to have dysfunctional families."[24] The video won four MTV Video Music Awards in 1993, including Best Video of the Year, Best Group Video, Best Metal/Hard Rock Video, and Best Direction.[4] Trevor Wilson appeared with Pearl Jam onstage when they won 'Best Video Of The Year.' Vedder introduced him to the crowd: "This is Trevor. He lives."

text: Video summary[edit]

text: In Pellington's video, Jeremy is shown being alienated and taunted by classmates at school, running through a forest, and screaming at his parents at a dinner table. Only Jeremy is shown moving in the video; every other character in his life is frozen in a series of stationary tableaus. Shots of words depicting others' presumed descriptions of Jeremy — such as "problem", "peer", "harmless", and "bored" — frequently appear onscreen. Included are two biblical allusions: "the unclean spirit entered", from Mark 5:13,[25] and "Genesis 3:6", referencing the creation of sin.[26] As the song becomes more dense and frenetic, Jeremy's behavior becomes increasingly agitated. Strobe lighting adds to the anxious atmosphere. Jeremy is shown standing, arms raised in a V (as described in the lyrics at the beginning of the song), in front of a wall of billowing flames. Jeremy is later shown staring at the camera while wrapped in an American flag, surrounded by fire.

text: The final scene of the video shows Jeremy striding into class, tossing an apple to the teacher, and standing before his classmates. He reaches down and draws back his arm as he takes a gun out of his pocket (The gun only appears onscreen in the unedited version of the video). The edited version cuts to an extreme close-up of Jeremy's face as he puts the barrel of the gun in his mouth, closes his eyes, and pulls the trigger. After a flash of light the screen turns black. The next shot is a pan across the classroom, showing Jeremy's blood-spattered classmates, all completely still, recoiling in horror. The video ends on a shot of a dangling blackboard, on which all the harsh terms and phrases seen earlier had been scrawled.

text: Controversy[edit]

text: MTV restrictions on violent imagery prevented Pellington from showing Jeremy putting the gun in his mouth and pulling the trigger at the climax of the video.[24] Incidentally, the ambiguous close-up of Jeremy at the end of the edited video, combined with the defensive posture of Jeremy's classmates and the large amount of blood, led many viewers to believe that the video ended with Jeremy shooting his classmates, not himself.[24] In 1997, Rolling Stone described the song and video as depicting an unpopular student bringing a gun to class and shooting people.[27]

text: Pellington himself dismisses this interpretation of the video.[24] He said, "Probably the greatest frustration I've ever had is that the ending [of the "Jeremy" video] is sometimes misinterpreted as that he shot his classmates. The idea is, that's his blood on them, and they're frozen at the moment of looking."[24] He had filmed a scene where Jeremy is shown putting the gun in his mouth, but this footage was edited with a zoom effect for the MTV version of the video so the gun was not visible.[24] Pellington also filmed a slightly different take of the classroom Pledge of Allegiance sequence. In the MTV version of the video there is a brief shot of Jeremy's classmates making a gesture that could be either the American Bellamy salute or the Nazi Hitler salute; in the original cut of the video this scene is longer. The video is shot in such a way that the camera pan shows the alternate salute while traveling in the opposite direction...left to right as opposed to right to left with the normal hand over heart positioning.

text: After "Jeremy", Pearl Jam backed away from making music videos. "Ten years from now," Ament said, "I don't want people to remember our songs as videos."[28] The band did not release another video until 1998's "Do the Evolution", which was entirely animated.

text: In 1996, a shooting occurred at Frontier Junior High School in Moses Lake, Washington that left three dead and a fourth injured. The prosecutors for the case said shooter, Barry Loukaitis, was influenced by the edited version of the music video.[6]

text: After the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, MTV and VH1 rarely aired the video, and mention of it was omitted in retro-documentaries such as I Love the '90s. It is still available on the internet, on websites such as YouTube. It can also occasionally be seen playing at Hard Rock Cafe locations. The video occasionally airs on MTV Classic. The video was included in MuchMusic's list of the 12 most controversial videos. The reason was because of the topic of suicide, and recent school shootings. The scene of Jeremy with the gun in his mouth was not shown. It was also included on VH1's countdown of the "100 Greatest Songs of the '90s" at number 11,[29] with several clips of the video shown, including part of the ending. The uncensored version of the video was shown as part of the retrospective "Pearl Jam Ten Revisited" on VH1 Classic in 2009 prior to the album's re-release, including the shot in which Jeremy puts the gun in his mouth.

text: Live performances[edit]

text: "Jeremy" was first performed live at the band's May 17, 1991 concert in Seattle, Washington at the Off Ramp Café.[30] Pearl Jam performed the song for its appearance on MTV Unplugged in 1992. Pearl Jam also performed "Jeremy" at the MTV Video Music Awards in 1992. The band had intended to perform the Dead Boys song "Sonic Reducer", but MTV insisted that it play "Jeremy" since the song's music video was already in heavy rotation. (It had been released after the deadline for that year's awards.) At the end of the intense performance, Vedder managed to sneak in a reference to the Dead Boys song by singing the first line of "Sonic Reducer", "I don't need no ... I don't need no mom and dad."[31] Live performances of "Jeremy" can be found on the "Animal" single, the "Dissident"/Live in Atlanta box set, various official bootlegs, the Live at the Gorge 05/06 box set, and the Drop in the Park LP included in the Super Deluxe edition of the Ten reissue. Performances of the song are also included on the DVD Touring Band 2000 and the MTV Unplugged DVD included in the Ten reissue.

text: Track listing[edit]

text: "Jeremy" (Promo Version)– 5:21

text:
"Jeremy" (Eddie Vedder, Jeff Ament) – 4:49
"Footsteps" (Stone Gossard, Vedder) – 3:53
Recorded live on Rockline on May 11, 1992.
"Yellow Ledbetter" (Ament, Mike McCready, Vedder) – 5:04

text:
"Jeremy" (single version) (Vedder, Ament) – 4:46
"Yellow Ledbetter" (Ament, McCready, Vedder) – 5:04
"Alive" (live) (Vedder, Gossard) – 4:55
Recorded live on August 3, 1991 at RKCNDY in Seattle, Washington.

text:
"Jeremy" (single version) (Vedder, Ament) – 4:46
"Alive" (live) (Vedder, Gossard) – 4:55
Recorded live on August 3, 1991 at RKCNDY in Seattle, Washington.

text:
"Jeremy" (Vedder, Ament) – 4:49
"Footsteps" (Gossard, Vedder) – 3:53
Recorded live on Rockline on May 11, 1992.

text:
"Jeremy" (single version) (Vedder, Ament) – 5:18
"Alive" (Vedder, Gossard) – 5:40

text:
"Jeremy" (Vedder, Ament) – 4:46
"Footsteps" (Gossard, Vedder) – 3:53
Recorded live on Rockline on May 11, 1992.
"Alive" (live) (Vedder, Gossard) – 4:55
Recorded live on August 3, 1991 at RKCNDY in Seattle, Washington.

text: Chart positions[edit]

text:
Chart (1992–93)

Peakposition

Australia (ARIA)[32]

68

Canada Top Singles (RPM)[33]

32

Germany (Official German Charts)[34]

93

Ireland (IRMA)[35]

10

Netherlands (Single Top 100)[36]

59

New Zealand (Recorded Music NZ)[37]

34

UK Singles (The Official Charts Company)[38]

15

US Alternative Songs (Billboard)[39]

5

US Mainstream Rock (Billboard)[40]

5

Chart (1995)

Peakposition

US Billboard Hot 100[3]

79

text: Accolades[edit]

text: The information regarding accolades attributed to "Jeremy" is adapted in part from Acclaimed Music.[41]

text:
Publication

Country

Accolade

Year

Rank

MTV

United States

"100 Greatest Videos Ever Made"[42]

1999

19

Rolling Stone

United States

"The 100 Top Music Videos"[43]

1993

36

"The 100 Greatest Pop Songs Since the Beatles"[44]

2000

48

VH1

United States

"100 Best Songs of the Past 25 Years"[45]

2003

32

"100 Greatest Songs of the '90s"[29]

2007

11

Kerrang!

United Kingdom

"100 Greatest Singles of All Time"[46]

2002

85